Index talk:Bible (Douay Rheims NT, 1582).djvu

DavidPorter65 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's still being transcluded at Bible (Douay-Rheims Original). What should be done about that? Prosody (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your response. I'm not really sure how to answer your question. I'm don't really know how it got there or even what it is, except that some other people set that up for me. I'd like all traces of this project deleted, including that transclude page. I can't find any information on how to go about that. Not sure if that answers your question?  DavidPorter65 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:The_Holy_Bible_faithfvlly_translated_into_English_ovt_of_the_authentical_Latin,_diligently_conferred_with_the_Hebrew,_Greek,_%26_other_Editions_in_diuers_languages.pdf

I"d delete this project if I knew how.

If you want to proof-read, please do it at the new source Index:The_Holy_Bible_faithfvlly_translated_into_English_ovt_of_the_authentical_Latin,_diligently_conferred_with_the_Hebrew,_Greek,_%26_other_Editions_in_diuers_languages.pdf

DavidPorter65 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I change the name of the page? It needs NT in there somewhere. There are three djvu files altogether, the other two for the OT which is split into two parts.


 * The "move" option is under "More" next to the search bar. I've moved this page and requested a move of the DJVU file on Wikimedia Commons also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing and mixed-up pages
This text skips from page 42 to page 47 to page 44 to page 1094 to page 46 back to page 47 again. It seems to be missing pages 43 and 45. This text also skips from page 580 to page 582 to page 700 to page 583. It seems to be missing page 581. This text even skips from page 663 to page 666. It seems to be missing pages 664 and 665. allixpeeke (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

What publication is which?
So, this message will deal with the following three files: For simplicity sake, they shall be referred to respectively as: (Now, obviously, B has certain grave issues (viz., various missing and mixed-up pages ), but that is beside the point.) What I am looking for is the earliest printing of the Rheims New Testament. Comparing A and B I have noticed is that both A-title and B-title have the same title pages (ignore image quality, it's not relevant to this point). They both claim to the original 1582 publication, printed at Rhemes by Iohn Fogny (i.e., John Fogny). BUT, A and B are not the same publication! Just look at A-Matthew and B-Matthew to see for yourself. Whereas A-Matthew is titled "THE HOLY GOSPEL OF IESVS CHRIST ACCORDING TO MATTHEW", B-Matthew is titled "THE HOLY GHOSPEL OF IESVS CHRIST ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW." That's right: the latter incorporates an 'h' in the word Ghospel and an 'S.' prior to Matthew. These are two different printings. Which one, if either, is the original'' 1582 printing? Comparing B and C I have noticed is that both B-Matthew and C-Matthew have the same Gospel of Matthew (ignore image quality, it's not relevant to this point). They both are titled "THE HOLY GHOSPEL OF IESVS CHRIST ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW." In fact, they were clearly scanned from the same book. Compare the little dirt spots on these two pages, and you will see that they are identical. BUT, B and C are not the same file! Just look at the B-title and C-title title pages to see for yourself. Whereas B-title it titled "NEVV TESTAMENT" and claims to be the original 1582 publication, printed at Rhemes by Iohn Fogny (i.e., John Fogny), C-title is titled "NEW TESTAMENT" and claims to be printed by Iohn Covstvrier (i.e., John Cousturier) in 1633. This is (at least in part) the same printing. Is this, or is this not, the original 1582 printing? Other Sources Google Books places A / B-title and A-Matthew in the same publication. A copy scanned into Archive.org by FatimaMovement.com places A / B-title (3/765) and B / C-Matthew (29/765) in the same document. (Indeed, B appears to simply be a copy of this document .) A copy scanned into Archive.org by Gara3987 purports to be a combination of (1) Iohn Covstvrier (i.e., John Cousturier)'s 1635 edition of the the first tome of the Old Testament (1/2872), (2) Iohn Covstvrier (i.e., John Cousturier)'s 1635 edition of the the second tome of the Old Testament (1029/2872), and (3) the original 1582 edition of the "NEVV TESTAMENT" (1073/2872), printed at Rhemes by Iohn Fogny (i.e., John Fogny). This third section places A / B-title (1073/2872) and A-Matthew (2103/2872) in the same document. Based on what I am seeing, it appears like B wrongly combines parts of A and C, and that both A and C are faithful electronic reproductions of their originals. But, can anybody confirm this? (If so, this is pretty convenient, since B is trash anyway, being a scan of poor quality and having various pages that are either mixed up or outright missing.) allixpeeke (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (NOTE&#58; This same exact message is being cross-posted here and here.)
 * Index:1582 Rhemes New Testament.pdf
 * Index:Bible (Douay Rheims NT, 1582).djvu (i.e., this file)
 * Index:The New Testament of Iesvs Christ faithfvlly translated into English, ovt of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Greek, & other Editions in diuers languages.pdf
 * A
 * B
 * C

These different editions are all the same in their words. The 1635 has a lot of typos, spelling and punctuation fixed up, but all the words are the same. Really there's nothing to be gained by trying to find the "earliest". The 1635 will give the best transcripts. DavidPorter65 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether they use the same words is not what is relevant here. What is relevant is that one version was printed in 1582, and a different version with different pictures and different spellings and even slightly different titles was printed in 1635. I simply wish to know for sure which set of pictures/spellings/titles came before the other. allixpeeke (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you answer any of this? DavidPorter65 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am the uploader of A and C, and can confirm your conclusion. Here is what I discovered myself before uploading the files: A is the NT volume (1582) of the first edition Douay-Rheims bible. C is the NT of the Iohn Covstvrier 3-volume edition of the Douay-Rheims published at Rouen in 1633. B - I did not upload this file, but research leads me to believe that it is a reupload of files offered by FatimaMovement on their website. FatimaMovement essentially stole scans already offered online by universities and slapped on their watermark in order to direct people to their site. However, upon closely examining what FatimaMovement offers, you will notice that their upload is not actually entirely the first edition Douay-Rheims, contrary to what they claim. This is why B 's content is the same as C 's, because FatimaMovement dishonestly removed the title page of Iohn Covstvrier's 1633 NT and replaced it with the title page of the 1582 NT. All this I confirmed using the information on the different editions found here.ChristusRex (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to let the uploader of the FatimaMovement scans,, know of the above so that something may be done in hopes of reducing confusion for the people who might start transcribing those fallacious scans. ChristusRex (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I just ran the upload per a request with the information supplied (procedural). I know nothing about the works, and you are welcome to challenge the veracity of each, and recommend fixes. If you need a hand to get things sorted system-wise then ping or myself for fixes here, and if we need to fix things at Commons  (and that should be a big IF) then let me know as I have rights to fix both here and there. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We then have the transclusion of the work to our main namespace. Once we have a work transcribed, we can transclude it as required, so once the identified editions have their provenances identified we will transclude them appropriately. That may mean deletion of existing pages or redirects where they are wrong. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Then what would be the procedure for this file which should not even be used by the wiki? I understand it was uploaded by mistake, but it should not be allowed to remain here any longer. The problem, you see, is that if someone comes here looking for the first edition of this work (Douay-Rheims Bible), they will be redirected from here to here which has for source the index page of the mismatched scans. Instead, it should have for its source this page which has the correct scans of the first edition. Sadly, it appears there is work that has been done on the mismatched scans, and I am unsure how to proceed... ChristusRex (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to separate incorrect information recorded against a work, from our transcription of an edition of a work that is not already here.
 * It is appropriate for the edition to be uploaded and transcribed. WS is not limited to one version of a work, as we can have multiple copies of works. However, we do limit ourselves to one copy of an edition (does that clarify our position?) So for the uploaded edition we need to ensure that it is appropriately identified and recorded. So ... here we have the File: at Commons that may need its edition data updated, and its Index: namespace paired page which should contain the matching edition data.
 * The correctly identified provenence of work showing in the main namespace.
 * So
 * update any detail that you think should be updated, and say what should happen to the file/index pair, and
 * tell us what should be happening in the main namespace to works or links that are there. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the work's main namespace, I corrected it to be associated with the index page of the correct edition. The three .djvu files you uploaded from FatimaMovement should probably be deleted along with their index pages because
 * The 2 Old Testament volumes you uploaded are border-line unreadable, are missing pages, and have some incorrect ordering. I've reuploaded those long ago (under a different file name) with all the issues fixed, so there's no need to keep them.
 * The New Testament volume is the product of mixing 2 different editions by FatimaMovement and therefore cannot be associated with a single edition in the file description. It also has the same problems mentioned above. Again, I've reuploaded the correct scans for this edition. ChristusRex (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)